U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 25, 2014 10:19 AM UTC

New Poll: Tax Fairness Breaks Senate Race Gridlock?

  • 51 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: From today's press release:

“Coloradans from all backgrounds prefer a Senate candidate who supports closing corporate tax loopholes and ending tax breaks for the wealthy,” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. “The tax fairness agenda is supported by Colorado voters more than most other top issues emphasized by the Senate candidates.  That suggests that a candidate who supports tax fairness issues could get an edge in this race.”

“When you look at the strength of these numbers, it’s hard to understand why the candidates don’t focus more on tax issues,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund. “Colorado families clearly want a fairer tax system and they are more likely to choose a candidate for the U.S. Senate who will fight for it.”

“The results of this poll show that, yet again, Mark Udall falls squarely on the side of the majority of Coloradans when it comes to the issue of corporations paying their fair share,” said Amy Runyon-Harms, Executive Director of ProgressNow Colorado. “Cory Gardner, on the other hand, has voted time and again to give tax breaks to big business and against the best interests of everyday people in our state.”

—–

UPDATE: The Hill's Alexandra Jaffe reports:

PPP also surveyed Coloradans on a series of hot-button issues, including whether they’d be more likely to support a candidate who wants to “protect a woman’s right to choose,” who “believes we just can’t afford ObamaCare” and who wants “to make sure the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes.”

ProgressNow Colorado Executive Director Amy Runyon-Harris said the results of the survey show Udall is on the right side of most of the issues polled, and particularly on tax fairness issues. She suggested, however, more needs to be done to inform voters of his positions.

“We’ve got 40-odd days here left [before Election Day] to educate voters about where Mark Udall stands on these issues and where Cory Gardner stands on these issues,” she said, expressing confidence that once voters learned more they’d support Udall.

—–

Mark Udall, Cory Gardner.
Mark Udall, Cory Gardner.

A new poll by Public Policy Polling released today for Americans for Tax Fairness and ProgressNow Colorado has numbers you won't be surprised by: a statistical tie continuing in the Colorado U.S. Senate race–Cory Gardner technically up 47-45% over incumbent Democrat Mark Udall with 8% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 3.8%.

But as PPP's analysis explains, those aren't the numbers that really matter:

The poll questioned likely voters on a variety of issues that are central to this Senate race, including important tax issues, and found the following: 

• Colorado voters strongly prefer a candidate who supports a “tax fairness”  agenda. Voters across party lines overwhelmingly support a tax system in which the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. 

• Tax fairness issues ranked higher than nearly all other major issues being  debated in the Senate race. 

• Support for tax fairness issues runs so strong across party lines that it appears to  be a core value held by the public. Wide majorities of white, African-American  and Latino voters expressed support for tax fairness. A wide majority of women  and a majority of men expressed support for tax fairness issues. A majority of  self-described moderates and independents also supported these positions.

…A total of 10 issues were tested. Three of the top five dealt with tax fairness: 

• 79% of likely voters said they would be more likely to support a candidate who wants to close tax loopholes and use the money to create jobs, including 72% of independents and 71% of Republicans. 

• 73% of likely voters said they would be more likely to support a candidate who wants to make sure millionaires do not pay a lower tax rate than the middle class, including 75% of independents and 55% of Republicans. 

• 68% of likely voters want to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas, including 70% of independents and 57% of Republicans.

Here are the full toplines and analysis.

For the past several months, the U.S. Senate race has been locked in a very narrow range according to most polls. Udall has held on to an enduring lead with women voters over Gardner, which has kept Udall strong through a summer of millions spent on attack ads against him. If the numbers in this poll are accurate, the issue of fairness in tax policy is extremely fertile ground for Udall to differentiate himself from Gardner. In the last big debate over tax rates on wealthy Americans, extending the 2003 Bush tax cuts, Udall and Gardner were polar opposites. More recently, Gardner has supported the Paul Ryan GOP budget plans, all of which included large tax breaks for wealthy Americans–again, on the wrong side of what looks like a lopsided majority.

Is this issue a breakout opportunity for Udall in a race way too close to call?

Tweet
Share

Comments

51 thoughts on “New Poll: Tax Fairness Breaks Senate Race Gridlock?”

  1. Then I'd suggest the Udall campaign replace some their choice ads (that message covered to death) with some tax fairness messages emphasizing closing loopholes to create jobs and ensuring that millionaires don't pay next to nothing while the middle class foots the bill and finances their tax breaks

    Another suggestion. Don't bother to read Piss Ants inevitable posts about Gardner being ahead, the momentum being with Gardner, Udall doomed, etc. We already know exactly what he'll say. Give yourselves a break.

    1. Nice try, but Gardner IS in the lead. PPP's last poll was Udall up by 1, so there IS momentum.

      Udall is not doomed, but it sure doesn't look good right now. I don't see how dragging up the Bush tax cuts again is going to help.

        1. Little Mo, I'd argue.

          Everybody's still well within the margin of error, and practically ALL I've seen on TV for the last week or so are these lie-spewing pro-Gardner ads. Udall's counterblitz is yet to come.

          1. Mo nonetheless. BC is right, the choice ads are played. They've won or kept all the voters they're going to, and Udall needs to switch from his jabs reverse the downswing. 

            1. Yes, but even a major repition of the "played ads," plus wahtever else Udall amd the PACs may still have up their sleeves, are very likely to move that needle once again. I'm not cocky, but neither am I particularly concerned.

          2. No argument. But you know how over the top Piss Ant's crowing will be and he'll be just as wrong as happy talkers. I do think there will be plenty of money coming in for a big finish and still expect Udall to win. Certainly not in a Romney style landslide wink, but a win as long as they play the end game smart.

      2. Did ypou look at those secondary polling numbers there, Zippy? Do you have the slightest idea how potentially terribly vulnerable ALL of your Koch-suckling, pro-billionaire/anti-middle class GOTP candidates are on these issues?

      3. Two things, modster. First, no need for  "dragging up" anything from the Bush past. We have the policies Rs are promoting right now to go to.  Second, looks like you're admitting the Bush tax cuts would be a loser for your guys if they weren't, in your opinion, such ancient history. Interesting.

    2. Under the doctrine of fairness, Udall has a virtual buffet of items to talk about.  Lest we forget that the Congressman pushed to eliminate $40 billion in food aid in the Farm Bill negotiations.  This, at a time where our federal treasury gives record support to the traditional commodity-crop farmers in Gardners district.  As I write this we've witnessing a record drop in corn prices nationally, yet those farmers will ride this wave until we see higher prices because of their federal support program. 

      We're all in this together.  Rural and urban alike.  Pretending it's OK to take food out of the mouths of babes (some of Gardners congressional communities are amongst the most challenged in the state) while supporting the other side of the demand-supply equation with record dollars isn't prudent, or moral…or fair.

      2. Yes he does have a virtual buffet to choose from and I think what the polling is telling us is that it's not a minute too soon for him to start choosing a few more items.

        1. PS The ad about the government shut own hurting Coloradans in the wake of the flooding is a good one. But we need a new one or two addressing these popular tax and economic issues.

  2. Ouch!

    PPP Dem house poll, polls more Dems than Republicans and Gardner is up 2.

    Translated, for polsters.  In an off year election in Colorado you can expect about 5% more Republicans to vote than Dems, so Gardner is really ahead by 5-6.

    2. You're forgetting one thing – that line of thinking (as flawed as it is) might be true in an election where everyone has to find time to go to a polling place on election day. This is Colorado, everyone get's a mail-in ballot. The outmoded line of thinking about greater GOP turnout in midterm elections doesn't hold water in this state anymore. 

      1. Where they can no longer suppress and/or disenfranchise the vote, the GOTP seldom wins any more — espcially in states like ours. That fact won't stop Skippy from attempt to spread his manure, if he's lucky maybe snagging some poor low-info yutz somewhere.

      2. OF,

        Does the percentage of registered voters hold water?

        There are 2% more registered Republicans than Dems.  Assume there is no  difference in turn out, which in my view is a stretch, but assume that to be true.

        The PPP poll that had Gardner up 2 polled 1% more Dem than Republican.  If it polled 2% more Republican than Dem, the % of registered voters in Colorado, that 3% difference would have Gardner up 5%.

        1. Assuming everyone of those Republicans polled pull the lever for Gardner, etc. Comparing straight registration to possible turnout is apples to bowling balls.

          You can't make the old assumptions about midterm election turnout as you once could due to everyone getting a mail-in ballot. That turns turnout on it's head.

          1. Not only that but we now have same day registration. More people will be voting, this will not be a typical midterm. Also, I seem to remember in the last gop wave election – the Colorado republicans lost and buck was favored to win in the polls.

            1. Dems turned out in 2010, a so called "republican wave" year and the Democrats are ready again

              Both Oregon and Washington saw dramatic increases in turnout percentage after transitioning to all-mail elections. In Oregon, turnout rose from 59 percent in 1998, the midterm election before the state went all-mail to 69 percent in 2002. Washington’s turnout rose from 64.5 percent in the 2006 midterms to 71.2 percent in 2010, the first year elections were conducted entirely by mail.

              Colorado’s voter turnout is already among the highest in the nation. In 2010, 73.5 percent of voters showed up, a better performance than many states record in presidential election years.

              Democrats are hoping for even higher turnout this year. 

              Over the past two decades, Democrats nationwide have invested heavily in developing their absentee ballot and early vote programs. Their progress is especially pronounced in Colorado, where Sen. Michael Bennet (D) won a tough-fought campaign in 2010, and where President Obama beat Mitt Romney by a wider-than-expected margin in 2012, both thanks to votes banked long before Election Day. This time, Udall’s team says it has twice as many volunteers, offices and paid staff as Bennet did in 2010, and the campaign has already opened 20 field offices around the state.

              A constellation of independent groups, with names like Fair Share, Mi Familia Vota and New Era Colorado, are aiding Udall by searching for new voters to register, especially younger voters, Hispanics and women, all core Democratic constituencies.

                3. In 2008, Mike Coffman suppressed the votes of 35,000 Democrats. He also tried to keep Spanish speaking voters from voting.  In 2012, Scott Gessler tried to kick 20,000 off the rollls. These attempts failed to give a Republican victory.

                  With Senator Giron's signature achievement, the Modernized Elections Act (HB1303) in place, even Marilyn Marks thinks that Republicans will be disadvantaged in turnout. Why? The usual voter suppression tactics won't work. 

                  Even your Redstate buddies aren't nearly so sanguine about your chances of taking the Senate as you try to be on here. Consensus from these bloggers seems to be that it is an uphill battle for the GOP, which could go either way. 

                   

                  1. Right, JBLK.

                    From that same Redstate video, there are some interesting quotes:

                    Aaron Gardner redstate briefing with Moe Lane, who is actually more “pro –Doom!”

                    ML: Colorado will be fought out. State polls in places not normally friendly territory for GOP, eg. Mass. State polls were correct in 2012.

                    Lucky to have 3 GOP Senate wins, almost certainly will have one or two.

                    Aaron gardner: at 5:20:  RE Q poll: I like it, but I don’t think it necessarily represents reality here on the ground.  Gardner reminds viewers that Quinnipiac predicted Buck up at the end, and he lost, because “things happen”.

                    I’m not ready to call Colorado.
                     Louisiana Arkansas, I’m not ready to call doom there, either.  Joe schmo:

                    It will definitely be a runoff between Mary Landrieu and five other candidates.

                    My fear is that control of the senate hinges on this race.

                    Michigan is a blue state. Michigan Governor: I’m not going to vote forhim.

                    If there is going to be a Republican wave, there won’t be a Senator from Michigan.

                    Aaron Gardner on the KS race: Pat Roberts is the establishment guy. If he falls flat on his face, we know who to blame for it. I’m just putting that out there.

                    Moe Lane at 11:55 .  

                    Childers isn’t going to win the election in Mississippi. Most of the arguments for Rs taking the senate revolve around KS.

                    IA: Joni Ernst. Rasmussen shows them tied.
                    At 16:55 ML says, you know how in the past, Republicans kept saying dumb stuff, and it was infectious? Well IA’s Bruce Braley is doing that this time.

                    At 18:50, Moe Lane talks about how everyone was wrong about a Republican wave in 2012.

                    So that’s about as far as I listened to this.  What’s fascinating to me about it is how when GOP bloggers talk amongst themselves, they don’t feel obligated to being up any fake scandals, no Benghazi, no IRS, no Obamacare death panels.  No spinning like an insane top.

                    They admit that some of their candidates said stupid stuff, and that someo f their polling and predictions were flat out wrong in 2008 and 2012.

                    They just realistically discuss the different races and the changes of taking over the Senate. And what heartens me is that they see it as a tough fight, which could go either way.

                     

            2. That's a polling sample, not an indication of turnout. 

              You're presuming turnout will be like it is in midterm elections of the past (and a presumption based on straight registration numbers). I'm saying that that logic doesn't apply anymore/as much due to the new nature of elections in this state. 

              Do I believe turnout will be D+1? No. Do I believe turnout will be R+5? No. 

        2. You are assuming strong party loyalty, that is not always the case.  From the poll results many republicans care about many of the same things that democrats do.  Imagine that.

          laugh

  3. "Mommy, Where do trust fund babies come from?" written in pre 2010 cycle, trying to draw attention to the obvious error of tax breaks for off shoring of jobs. Gardner's claim to shake things up in the Senate is  as flat as the R led House of stagnation, no movement of tax reform thanks to cult like Grover Norquist no tax pledge a simplistic solution to a complex  problem, Koch lackys need not apply..

  4. Once again proving that Udall is losing this race because the rest of his message is getting in all the abortion shit.  Really, move on.  He's like a one issue candidate and Gardner is skewering him for it.  Everyone knows Udall's pro-choice and Gardner won't let a woman have an abortion even if she is raped.  55% are much more likely to vote for a candidate with Udall's position.  Yet, he's been losing, sometimes badly, in three straight polls.  It's probably too late to turn this around, so, idiots from DC who are running this race.  I told you so a long time ago and you didn't believe me.  Now you've got proof from one of the best pollsters in the Country.  You really f-d this up.  I hope you make a lot of money cause you're going to have egg all over your faces.  Dumb-asses.

    1. Craig, In all fairness it was going to be tough race from the begining.  Obama's 42% approval rating means he needs to find 8+% to vote for him who do not approve of Obama.  Hard to do if you vote with Obama all the time.

        2. Is that what a 99% "voting record with Obama" gave us?  You do realize that during the worst three years of economy under Obama, the Koch, Inc. fortune increased by $33 billion?  (and I think we can all agree they don't think they're rich enogh yet).  At the same time our country had over 1 million homeless school children.  If that's the kind of America you long for, then you'd love #SenatorQuidProKoch….

          PS:  yes, these are the things Udall should be talking about.  I'm sure you secretly hope he doesn't.

          1. The average Republican in congress votes with the party about 95% of the time. The votes against are mainly from those who are too far right even for today's crazy far right GOTP.  And what have all those Republicans been doing with their votes? Mainly voting endlessly to repeal ACA knowing that it couldn't be done because they didn't have the votes to overturn a presidential veto, voting to block anything and everything that could possibly be seen as a victory for Obama, a goal they set before his first inauguration, and voting to shut down the government in attempts to get via blackmail what they couldn't get via the democratic process. And this record is what Modster is so damn proud of. 

            It seems like  team Udall could be doing a better job with this, doesn't it?

    3. I've been urging a shift to the economic issues and complaining about Dems ceding the economic stuff to Rs, even though the R economic record sucks, for a long time now, too. The unfortunate thing about political ops is that they have so much in common with old generals fighting the last war, including an arrogant assumption that anyone trying to tell them any different doesn't know what they're talking about.

      When Bennet changed from attacking Buck on the single war on women issue and ran some ads on a broader set of issues his polling numbers went down. When he returned to that message they went back up. That's probably why they are doggedly sticking to the one issue strategy even though the movement in the numbers is not the same as in the Bennet race.  Let's hope they don't have to see this strategy fail in November before they start realizing … times, and situations change. 

      I'm still  pretty confident they'll pull it out with a strong finish. And the universal mail ballots help. But it's concerning, I'm not going to lie.  After all, I'm not a rightie. There's no Borg feeding me my lines. 

       

      1. As political junkies we see things waay diff. Who is undecided ? low info + low turn out voters. Imigine the gender gap can glean more converts. Whats left? register the reluctant. show them where in their lives it makes a diff to vote. People fear voting( sometimes)because of jury duty. tell them they can still be called regardless ( I think thats true.) Start with the people you interact with. My conversations are usually steered towards those goals. After the deadline, then force the issue of voting. " both parties the same" blah blah.Explain that "no votes" are not counted in the losing side, only the winning. Lastly, feeling frustrated? check out ActBlue as a streamlined method of giving small amts (I gave $7.00 to Rob Zerban {vs. Eddie Munster} more than once) It will calm the nerves to do something proactive, and if you skip a meal, well, you're almost there as a zeolot ha ha and a slimmer you

        1. I've volunteered both for my local Dem party at HD level and for candidates and GOTV for about a decade now. Have done phone banking, canvassing, helping with fundraising events etc. All of those things are helpful. Door to door is helpful, especially when you can say, I'm not a paid volunteer. I'm your neighbor and this is why I'm supporting this candidate or that initiative, what have you. But, because most voters are low info and not making much effort to learn about candidates on their own, something you learn very quickly while canvassing, nothing trumps lots of money on successful ads and for name rec in the case of challengers, such as Romanoff in the CD6 race. 

          Trust me, nobody is more aware of how little attention most people pay to the politics that affect their lives so profoundly than somebody who has been going door to door every campaign season for a decade. I'm well aware that it's an entirely different world here in political junkie land.

          The Gardner camp has come out with a flurry of new negative ads and the Udall campaign is going to have to counter with both new attack ads and new positive ads.  Period.  All choice all the time ads aren't going to do the trick regardless of what worked for Bennet in a different race at a different time.  For one thing htose choice ads have been around long enough now that they're entering wallpaper territory. The Udall campaign needs something new and they need it now. 

          There is plenty to mine from those opinion polls that can be put into simple soundbite ready language. And lets not kid ourselves that the voters Dems need are all so much more sophisticated that we don't need to keep it simple stupid. Our electorate is what it is. 

          1. Good Job there, Blue. You knew I wasn't going after you,(you read my comment archive) I just tagged up to a likeable comment to share my method in the waning days hopefully to counter midterm apathy.& not just horse race poll chasing. Practical methods yield positive results.

            My feeling there is never enough done to register… people struggle just to keep a car running to get to work, food on the table stuff.I never judge after realizing that, only adapt my pitch

            .Others could share their recipe, I look at the pot migration as ready converts to voting to protect MJ legal… thx for the space to share

             

  5. One question that is being capitalized on by Gardner:

    A candidate who votes with President Obama 99% of the time.

    How often does Gardner vote with Boehner? supporting Koch causes?

    I am door-knocking for Udall this weekend. I am going to read up on these results.

    1. The fact is most congress members vote with their party leadership a huge percentage of the time. For one thing, the party leadership has to work with members to get something that will command support before it gets to a vote. So that's not much of a measure.

      The truth is Udall has criticized and stood against the Obama administraion on a number of important issues, especially concerning mass spying on US citizens and others involving the whole war on terror constellation of issues. This might be a good time to draw some of those contrasts. Especially since most Dems are more on his side than the Obama administrio'sn on those issues so they, if anything, strengthen Dem support while letting folks in the middle know that he is very much not a  blind loyalist.

      And pretty sure you're right about Gardner. His record wouldn't exactly show how much more independent minded he is. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with throwing stones while living in a glass house. Bet a lot more footage is available of Udall showing independence than Gardner.

      1. Yes, the "horsetrading" leads to a stronger consensus.

        When I held office, noone noticed that my board voted unanimously 98% of the time. It was the debates and 2-1 votes that got people's attention.

        I also believe that it is a factor that the Senate has not had much worth voting on that they received from the House.

         

         

         

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

51 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!